Bringing Peace To The Workplace

02/23/2011

Amy Chua had her 15 minutes of fame and I’m hesitant to give her another second. But the issues she raises in her distorted way about parenting are also relevant for organizations.

My long time colleague, Julie King, a Bay Area expert in parenting, has weighed into the Chua controversy with her own take on the parenting issue.

Julie states some key ideas about not only how to parent but why certain parenting styles produce better people. She critiques Chua’s use of blaming, shaming and punishment as misguided as well as ineffective.

Parenting is directly connected to work issues. Bad parenting, such as blaming and punishment, creates employees who then act out their early childhood trauma at work by becoming dependent, defiant, fearful and distorting of advice or direction. Unfortunately, blaming and punishment are key tools in most managers’ arsenal, which perpetuates employees’ parenting trauma, and for some employees, those who can’t leave, creates new trauma.

After a lengthy career dealing with this issue, I can report that the workplace literature clearly shows that positive reinforcement works better than anything else in parenting or at work. (Click here to see my blog post)

The following is Julie’s piece in its entirety. Pay attention to Julie's example of working with 5 year olds at the end of her article. The approach she uses works just as well at any age.

As a teacher of parenting, as well as a mother of three children and a Yale Law School graduate, I was distressed that Chua seemed to be advocating the use of shaming (she calls her daughter "lazy" and "pathetic"), and threats and punishment (she tries to force obedience by threatening to throw out her daughter's dollhouse and then denying her dinner).

Having since read the book in its entirety, I see that the excerpt is quite misleading.

The book is not a treatise on the best way to parent. It is a memoir of Chua's experience, describing her journey from strict adherence to the principles of "Chinese parenting" as she understands them, to a crisis point with her daughter in which she is forced to question and ultimately retreat from her original orthodoxy.

I found the book thought provoking, but also, ultimately, deeply disturbing in the assumptions it perpetuates. I worry that parents will be seduced by the book's implication that this approach is necessary to produce the exceptional accomplishments stereotypical of Asian children.

I fear that some parents will not pick up on her tongue-in-cheek style, and what is worse, accept her either-or assumption that the only alternative to such strict parenting is to give up on our kids and let them play video games all day.

There is a third way, combining empathy and respect with high expectations and clear limits, that does not fit Chua's dichotomy of "Western" versus "Chinese" parenting.

It is possible to maintain rigorous standards without shaming, using threats or punishing; but many of us were raised with all three, and don't know what else to do when the kids resist.

Yet, I have worked with literally hundreds of parents, as well as teachers, who successfully adopt this new way.

Here's a small example of an alternative approach that encourages perseverance and high standards: A participant in one of my workshops, who was both a mom and a teacher, told us about a project she was required to do every year with her 5-year-old students.

The project was very challenging, involving complex thinking and a lot of difficult, detailed work, and during the many years she had done the project she was never able to get more than one or two kids to complete the challenge, despite her best efforts to use positive feedback ("Nice job!" "You’re doing great!" and other encouragements).

But after our session on praise, in which we explored the importance of describing what we see, or describing the effort of a child, rather than passing judgment on how or what a child has done, she tried her new skills out on the children doing this same project that year:

"I see how hard you are working!"

"You have been concentrating hard for a long time!"

"Looks like you are really using a lot of brain power to try to figure this out."

To her amazement, not one of the children gave up, and even when recess came, several insisted on continuing the project until they were able to complete it.

Adopting a new parenting approach is not easy, and we won't get it "right" all the time. But the payoff is not only a child living up to his or her true potential, but also a person who is humane, principled, and committed to making the world a better place.

01/03/2011

Although talking behind a co-worker’s back is standard fare in most organizations, most of us, if asked about it, would probably say that such behavior is unproductive. But thanks to WikiLeaks’ outing of US diplomatic cables and the December 13 issue of the New Yorker, “Special Oops Frenemies,” by Lizzie Widdicombe, we may now view this behavior in a different way.

Diplomats as do most of us, says the author, play multiple roles in their lives. These roles, as do ours, require ”an extra slathering of false civilities that grease the wheels of all human dealings.” Things can go a little off when we do this; however, “one always runs the risk that wires will get crossed and hypocrisies will be exposed.”

This is what happened when private U.S. State Department cables were released with candid descriptions of people with whom the U.S. does business. For example, Nicolas Sarcozy of France is described as “thin skinned, “ while North Korea’s Kim Jong Il is referred to as a “flabby old chap.”

This kind of talk and exposure doesn’t happen only in diplomacy.

I’m sure it has happened to many of us a time or two: in comments made at an office holiday party when we’ve had a few too many, at a family function where, after thinking it for years, you blurt out that your brother-in-law is a pompous ass, or in an email to a confident about the CEO’s idiotic behavior where you mistakenly hit “reply all.”

Shakespearean scholar Stephen Greenblatt said the leaks reminded him of the opening scene in “King Lear” where Lear’s daughters are trying to flatter their father to get the bigger dowry. But out of earshot, the sisters show their true mind.

Goneril: You see how full of changes his age is…

Regan: Tis the infirmity of his age: yet he hath ever but slenderly known himself.

Greenblatt notes the coolness of the words, but says it’s something we all do: we say one version to people’s faces and a slightly cooler version when they are not in the room. He notes that this doesn’t make us liars. “What you say directly to your friend is very different from what you say behind your friend’s back, but that’s not the whole truth of the matter. Sometimes the whole truth of the matter includes the warm loving relations, too.”

So is there some value to this duplicity in our lives if not only in diplomacy? Anthropologist John Haviland says, “getting the dirt on someone can be helpful for a leader making a personnel decision. There is a serious processing of information there.” A world where this didn’t occur would be “kind of sad,” he says, and concludes by saying that in relationships people are always deciding what they will or won’t reveal. “You’re always doing that calculus. There’s emotional satisfaction in being able to filter and vent.”

So next time in the dentist’s office when you’re having a guilty pleasure reading People Magazine, or when your colleague continually refers to your firm’s CEO as “Mary bitch,” it’s all part of that calculus of what you, and others, are or are not revealing. And although I think that more often than not this behavior helps the workplace less, knowing that it has its place at times might lend you to cut others some slack…and even enjoy it.

11/01/2010

In my last postI noted that badly run meetings are a serious problem in today’s workplace and advocated four ways that could improve them. This post will continue with six additional methods to make your meetings more effective.

5. Appoint a recorder, timekeeper and facilitator.

This was Doyle and Straus' unique contribution to meeting effectiveness. These three roles keep the meeting moving and on track.

Appoint people to play these roles at each meeting. The roles can be rotated during the meeting if there is an important issue that the role players want to participate in.

Have the recorder chart (on a flip chart) the "meeting notes" as the meeting progresses. This "public" recording of the meeting eliminates the need for minutes and allows everyone to stay involved by having his or her contributions noted. This method also allows for making corrections on the spot. The notes should be transcribed and made available to all after the meeting.

The timekeeper notes time allotted for agenda items and makes sure the time is adhered to.

The facilitator keeps the meeting on track and makes sure the ground rules are followed, participation is wide spread, people are listened to and issues are aired and brought to a conclusion.

6. Plan the meeting.

Review the agenda and the meeting’s purpose. Get agreement on the outcomes to be accomplished by the end of the meeting. Make sure you have genuine buy-in.

7. Appoint a Devil’s advocate.

For each issue discussed, appoint and rotate the role of "devil's advocate". Many people will not speak out at meetings for fear of retribution, low group trust or just the fear of looking stupid. As a result "group think" becomes the norm and poor decisions result. By appointing a devil's advocate, you give official permission for raising differing views.

8. Designate follow-up.

After an issue is agreed upon, designate:

Who is responsible

What they will do

By when

This is the key issue of accountability. It makes the meeting worthwhile because it results in real organizational change.

9. Do a meeting review.

On a flip chart sheet, draw a line down the middle. On the top of the left column place a simple plus (+). On the other column, place a delta (∆) (for needs improvement). List group responses to the following:

Were the outcomes achieved?

What worked and what didn't?

How can the meeting be improved?

Use this information to plan the next meeting.

10. Monitor what happens after the meeting.

Note the water cooler/coffee machine conversations after the meeting. That's where the real meeting analysis often comes out. Comments made away from a meeting — negative or positive — do not contribute to the meeting’s productivity. If you hear such comments, figure out a way to bring that information to the next meeting. It may require a revision of the ground rules so people feel safe to discuss the real issues.

Meetings don't have to be the horrible experience that they often are. By following these tips, your meetings and your organizational results will improve.

10/25/2010

It's been 28 years since Michael Doyle and David Straus wrote their groundbreaking book, How To Make Meetings Work (1976). Are you like many of my clients who gripe about numbing, deadening meetings? As one publication put it, "days, weeks, months, years of our lives are slipping away in stuffy, overcrowded conference rooms”. Little appears to be accomplished and no one seems to be able to do anything about it.

Doyle and Straus claimed that there were 11 million meetings in the US every day in 1976. Doyle says that there are 25 million today and most of them don't work. If you calculate how much productive time plus lost wages accrue to those sitting in the room, a truly staggering figure emerges.

Fortunately there are answers for this dilemma. Let me offer you ten tips for turning around your unproductive meetings.

1. Is the meeting necessary?

Let's start with a fundamental-and radical- question: Is your meeting necessary? A meeting largely serves two important business purposes: sharing information or making a decision. Can some other method of information sharing/decision making be used? Meetings are often held because "it's time for our meeting" with very little thought spent in what will actually happen. So rethink if you even need to hold it.

2. Send an agenda in advance.

If you do decide to hold the meeting, send an agenda at least three days in advance. The agenda should be clear about what the meeting results should be, how people should prepare and what roles they will play. Show how the meeting connects with other meetings that may have contributed to the issues that will beaddressed. Ask for feedback. The three days allow for modifications if needed.

And don't forget to connect the meeting with the larger mission and vision of the organization. This creates and reinforces the much-needed larger context for the meeting.

3. Start and end on time.

Not doing this just (starting on time) reinforces the latecomers and punishes those who arrive on time. There are few things more maddening then waiting for stragglers and then listening to the half-hearted apologies-or no apologies at all.

Ending on time indicates that you value people's work that must be done after the meeting. Unfinished items can be carried over as part of the planning for the next meeting.

4. Create ground rules and follow them.

These should include: Whether "checking in" time should be before or part of the meeting

Reinforcing starting and ending on time

Creating a climate of trust where people can speak freely and no one gets hurt

Setting boundaries around the decision making process. When do you just want information from the group and when do you want a group decision

In my next post, I’ll cover the six remaining steps for improving your meetings.

10/11/2010

In Part 1, we go further into the second millennium and more and more people are spending a lot of time at work. As a result, they are dating, and falling in love with partners they’ve met at work. Yet, as research shows, workplace romance can be a rather tricky affair because these romances have both positive and negative effects on work performance.

Part 2 will consider the implications of the research on job behavior and what to watch out for.

Impact

Given the kinds of potential risks and benefits noted above, if you are thinking about the possibility of having an office romance, you should carefully weigh the pros and cons. Imagine what the best and worst case scenarios might be. Could you live with the worst case? If your job were on the line because of your romance, would you be willing to end the relationship or be transferred? Would you have no regrets about it? Don’t forget to examine how the relationship will affect your partner’s career as well.

You also need to ask yourself how the relationship at its peak would affect your ability to get the job done. How would it affect your co-workers? Would they be positive and support the relationship or would they try to undermine it including claiming that your romance is creating a hostile work environment?

Of course, one’s heart tends to lead in these kinds of affairs, but you, at least, need to be aware of the potential consequences. These things should not be entered into lightly.

How to Manage the Relationship

If you are already in a relationship at work, the following steps in managing the relationship are recommended. The first thing to consider is whether or not you are willing to go public about the relationship. In Quinn’s study, two-thirds of the people involved in an office romance tried to keep them secret. Yet, most of the people surveyed were well aware that a romance was, in fact, happening. In other words, they’ll probably find out anyway. By being up front about it, you can more effectively deal with the feelings that your manager(s) and coworkers will probably have anyway.

Mainiero suggests that you might consider writing a contingency plan with your partner about how the relationship will be handled by each of you and how it will be resolved if it ends. It should deal in a straightforward manner with the potential personal and performance fallout of the relationship. Some businesses call these agreements a “Love Contract” and they have both people sign it.

It is also recommended that you be particularly careful in the way that you relate to your partner when you’re at work together. Don’t express intimate feelings or use “pet” names at work. Avoid touching your partner in a suggestive manner. Don’t schedule long lunches together or after-hour meetings at the office with just the two of you. Keep your office door open when you’re together. Make sure that your manager and coworkers see that your work is getting done and that the relationship is not having a negative effect on your productivity.

Manager’s Role

If you’re a manager who has become aware of an office relationship, you should not shy away from the issue. Quinn’s survey found that over half of the managers who knew about an office romance did nothing about it.

The best thing to do in this situation is to openly discuss it with the two people involved. However, you must approach the participants with sensitivity and empathy. Interview each person separately. Ask open-ended questions and allow them to talk. Quite often one or both partners are glad to get it out in the open because they realize they’ve entered into a difficult situation.

If they decide they want to continue the romance, you must focus solely on their work performance. Make sure they are aware of the potential consequences of their relationship; i.e., if their work performance begins to suffer, they could be reprimanded, transferred or terminated. Explore with them the ways in which they should exercise caution. Finally, don’t forget to review the situation periodically with them.

Quinn’s study acknowledges that where termination occurs, the woman is twice as likely to be fired as the man. Be particularly careful that you are not making the woman the scapegoat or you may be faced with a wrongful termination suit.

Love in the office can be very difficult for all concerned. You can’t really prohibit it. All you can do is attempt to be honest and open about it. That can go a long way toward resolving the problems that arise when you’re coping with romance in the office.

10/04/2010

Romance in the workplace recently raised its complex head again last week. Bloomberg Businessweek reports that some employees (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_39/b4196073729941.htm) who know of a workplace affair are now claiming a hostile work environment under sexual harassment laws. In the past, employees might have been put off by an affair because of the impact of colleagues pairing have on teamwork. But they usually did nothing litigious. By claiming harassment, the story claims they are making themselves recession proof because of strong anti-retaliation laws.

The story also reports that recent surveys show that more employees believe office romance can lead to conflicts than in the past and that reports of an office romance has decreased from half in 2006 to a third in 2010. Clearly there is a romantic chill in the air. And this in spite of certain employers, such as Southwest Airlines and National Public Radio, that encourage romance.

So what is the correct approach? Let me outline some research findings that may make the issues surrounding the office romance more clear.

Research

A growing body of research has explored this phenomenon. One study conducted by Robert E. Quinn reported that over 60% of the people surveyed were either aware of an office romance or had been involved in one themselves. A study by Lisa Mainiero, found in her book, Office Romance: Love, Power & Sex in the Workplace, puts the figure at 76%.

Until very recently, these romances were on the rise because people are spending more and more time at the office and they don’t have the time to socialize outside of work the way they used to do. They are also attracted to those people who share the same daily successes and stresses as they do.

The bottom line is that you’re spending a lot of time around someone that you’re physically and emotionally attracted to, these things happen, whether they’re planned or not. There are many different reasons why people have office romances. Some just want a simple fling with no emotional attachments; others are looking for more serious romances; (and some, to be blunt, are just looking for a promotion or a raise. These kinds of relationships, especially with supervisors, are fraught with danger and should be avoided.)

These kinds of affairs can have both positive and negative consequences for not only the work performance of the two people involved, but they also impact the attitudes and performance of the people who are working with or around the couple. Quinn’s study found that, in a little over 10% of cases, the romances seemed to result in increased coordination, improved teamwork and improved productivity. Almost one-third of his respondents reported negative effects such as slower decision-making, lower morale and lower productivity.

In Part 2, I will cover the implications of the research on job behavior including things to watch out for.

09/23/2010

Despite our hope that it won’t be so, after a few times around the block we all realize that bosses make mistakes. And sometimes they are big ones. One of the roles of a good employee is to help your boss not make mistakes in the first place. A second role is to help him/her recover from mistakes when he does make them. But doing that is a lot more complicated and risky then that it appears. How do you disagree with your boss and not damage the relationship and possibly even put your job at risk?

Mastering Crucial Conversations: Brox suggests that you start by remembering two key things about the larger context of your career. First, you need to believe that what you have to say is important or you wouldn’t be where you are. If you notice something that will have a large impact, it’s your responsibility to speak up.

Second, part of surviving and thriving in your work life is to become effective in handling difficult workplace conversations. Not doing this puts you at risk and also negatively impacts the organization.

Pick Your Issue: Not all issues arewhat Brox terms “boss worthy.” Try and avoid interpersonal issues with colleagues. Bosses are often not good at mediating disputes; or they believe that you should work out differences with colleague yourself and should contact them only after these efforts have failed.

If it directly impacts your performance or the organization, then going to your boss is the smart move. This is especially true if you’ve made a mistake that impacts a customer or client. No boss that I know likes to be blindsided.

Be Private: As much as we’d like meetings to be places to air differences, most workplace meetings are not that advanced. Disagreeing in public or in an email can have serious consequences. Meet your boss in private.

Be Positive: It’s best to try and find part of the issue that is going well and start with that. You can then clarify your intentions, express concerns and provide options to make it better. It’s always best to give your boss a few choices vs. your one best way

Think Big: As you’re exploring the issue, always stay focused on the organization’s goals and how the options that you present further those goals.

Results: Finally, it’s important to understand that your boss may not follow your advice and that you not hold a grudge. What is also important to acknowledge is that you were not afraid to speak up, advanced your skills and showed your boss that you were concerned about the organization. There’s a good chance that you gained your boss’ respect and that the next time he may more open to what you suggest.

09/08/2010

A catchy format has arrived in book publishing in the past few years. It began with books like Life's Little Instruction Book and titles like 500 Things to Be Happy About. Essentially, these are "list books" with 100-1,000 little pointers or tips on a particular topic. In the business arena, popular titles like this include 1001 Ways toReward Employees and 1001 Ways to Energize Employees by Bob Nelson and Managing With Heart: 205 Ways to Make Your Employees Feel Appreciated by Sharon Good.

All three of these books focus on offering the reader a lot of mini-suggestions on how to motivate, inspire and reward your people. The obvious critique of the whole category is that these books are pretty easy to write. Collect or brainstorm a bunch of ideas and you've got a book.

But that in itself shouldn't negate their value to you. If they're easy to write, then they're also easy to read as well. And that's a point in their favor. You can browse through them and read them in a traffic jam or a line at the bank.

The good news is that there are many useful ideas in these books. For example, Sharon Good suggests that you might give your people:

A special bonus that's not at year’s end

Assigned parking spaces

A day off on their birthday

The right to make personal phone calls

These are simple ideas that can be very effective. But there are also tips that seem to be obvious filler in her books, e.g., Good urges you to treat your people with respect, which is both obvious and rather nebulous. And she repeats the idea of feeding your staff in a half-dozen ways: donuts, pizza, breakfast, lunch, etc.

Nelson's books are a little more substantial than Good's because he actually researched the specific ways that well-known companies have rewarded and motivated their employees. The fact that real businesses have done these things makes his books more credible. For example:

One company bought an ugly, old bowling trophy and passed it to people who had achieved spectacular results;

When a product passed a crucial test, another company had a Mariachi band parade through their plant.

The main point of these books is that little things count. If you do a number of these little things for your staff, they do add up. All together, they give your people the message that you care about their efforts and their well-being. In other words, doing these kinds of things demonstrates to your employees that you see them as human beings who have real needs for approval, comfort, fun, recognition, etc.

The best part is that these things are simple to do and extremely low-cost (if not completely free). You don't have to create a huge motivation program that costs thousands of dollars to get your people to feel good about their work.

But I want to emphasize that these kinds of things should not be used to mask any basic inequities in your organization. For example, if your salespeople are not getting decent commissions on a timely basis, they will not happily settle for a bunch of free donuts once a month. These things should enhance a fundamentally equitable system and not simply be a substitute for that.

So try these books. Read them when you can and let them inspire you. Allow them to be a jumping-off place for you to brainstorm some new ideas of your own that will surprise and please your people. If you take away one good idea from reading them, then the time and energy you spend will be well worth it. These books will remind you to have an "attitude of gratitude" for the various ways in which your people enhance your business as well as your life.

Managing with Heart mentions a survey in which employees said that "appreciation," "feeling in on things" and "help on personal problems" were more important to them than raises, job security and promotions. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

08/03/2010

"After 30 years of training, I'm increasingly convince that hiring is more important than training." - Dr. Stephen R. Covey

In general, when I buy a business book, I look for a few things. It should have something new in it that I don't know and not just be a compilation of the same old stuff on a particular topic. (This is often difficult. See my posts on Coping With Information Overload: Learning Only What You Need.) The new ideas should also be relatively inexpensive for my clients to implement. I usually prefer a lot of little ideas to a major new idea like, say, cultural change, that's unlikely to be used by my clients because it may be too big and expensive a change for them. And lastly, I’m always looking for ways to reduce conflict.

Given these criteria, I really like the book, New Ways To Hire Better People, by Bay Area psychiatrist, Pierre Mornell. It has a lot of practical, inexpensive ideas that will help you hire more effectively. For example, his idea of reviewing resumes in teams is both innovative and extremely time-effective.

Hiring is a difficult process and a bad hire can contribute to too much workplace conflict. Traditionally it's very hard to pick the best person. Mornell states that often the person who interviews the best is picked, rather than the best person for the job. In other words, people are chosen for their interview skills, instead of being tested for their actual job-related skills.

Mornell emphasizes that people should be called upon to demonstrate their skills repeatedly during the interview process. For example, he may ask potential employees to visit a company's store, plant, office or Web page and send a brief letter describing their reactions and constructive criticism. This is a great way to see if an interviewee understands your business and if he or she can make some useful suggestions about the way you do business.

He suggests many helpful ideas for interviews, such as sample questions and curve balls to throw at them (e.g. "How are you going to lose money for me?"), ways to take notes and techniques to raise unspoken problems. He also emphasizes that you should speak less during interviews and allow the person to speak as much as possible.

One of the main things I took away from the book was a sense of how creative the hiring process can really be. You can do so much that will involve and even inspire your candidates.

Mornell makes the point that it can cost a company 2 1/2 times an employee's salary to let go of a bad hire and find someone else, if the mistake is discovered in the first six months. He says that a $50,000-a-year employee will cost you $125,000 if he or she doesn't work out. This means you've got to hire the right people the first time.

And hiring the right kind of person also means you won't have to "remake" them in your training. For example, if they care about other people, you won't have to repeatedly teach them about the need for good customer service.

The bottom line is: Hiring is too important to be a hit or miss process. This book will help.

07/27/2010

I was recently asked to coach a mid-level manager who had been yelling at the people who reported to him. He was not being discriminatory. Rather, he was an "equal opportunity yeller;" his management style was to yell at everyone. His language and tone were abusive and his staff was threatening to quit. His superiors had known about this for a long time and finally told him that he had to change or he was gone.

Except for the part about knowing about it for a long time, this is a good way to handle the problem. The behavior was not legal harassment. It was poor management practice and also violated the company policy on workplace civility, a policy that is in almost all employment handbooks.

Now, let’s explore his superiors knowing about this problem for a long time, but not acting. HR had repeatedly brought the problem to managements’ attention, but they ignored it. It was only when the company’s employment attorney became concerned that I was called in.

In my 35 plus years providing conflict resolution services to organizations, I’ve seen employees regularly mistreated in a manner similar to this case. And I’ve also seen employers regularly doing nothing.

However, now the consequences of doing nothing are about to get more serious. There is a movement afoot to legislate against this type of behavior. The New York State Senate recently passed the “Healthy Workplace Act,” which states that an employee subject to an abusive workplace environment can sue for damages. Some examples of prohibited behavior are:

Repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults and epithets

Verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating or humiliating

The gratuitous sabotage or undermining of an employee's work performance

In my opinion, almost all the current laws protecting employees at the workplace occurred because employers do not take action to stop problems. And then when new legislation ensues, like the legislation mentioned above, employers complain about government creating a bad business environment and the costs of subsequent litigation.

So employers, take proper action before the above becomes the new workplace reality. Most employees just want to be productive, have good colleagues to work alongside and be treated reasonably. Make sure that happens.